This was about sending a message: “stfu or suffer the consequences”. Hence, subsequent people who encounter similar will think twice about reporting anything.
Did you even read the article ? The dude reported it anonymously, to a child protection org, not google, and his account was nuked as soon as he unzipped the data, because the content was automatically flagged.
Google didn’t even know he reported this, and Google has nothing whatsoever to do with this dataset. They didn’t create it, and they don’t own or host it.
They didn’t react to anything. The automated system (correctly) flagged and banned the account for CSAM, and as usual, the manual ban appeal sucked ass and didn’t do what it’s supposed to do (also whilst this is obviously a very unique case, and the ban should have been overturned on appeal right away, it does make sense that the appeals team, broadly speaking, rejects “I didn’t know this contained CSAM” as a legitimate appeal reason). This is barely news worthy. The real headline should be about how hundreds of CSAM images were freely available and sharable from this data set.
They reacted to the presence of CSAM. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it being contained in an AI training dataset, as the comment I originally replied to states.
This was about sending a message: “stfu or suffer the consequences”. Hence, subsequent people who encounter similar will think twice about reporting anything.
Did you even read the article ? The dude reported it anonymously, to a child protection org, not google, and his account was nuked as soon as he unzipped the data, because the content was automatically flagged.
Google didn’t even know he reported this, and Google has nothing whatsoever to do with this dataset. They didn’t create it, and they don’t own or host it.
It seems they did react to it though
They didn’t react to anything. The automated system (correctly) flagged and banned the account for CSAM, and as usual, the manual ban appeal sucked ass and didn’t do what it’s supposed to do (also whilst this is obviously a very unique case, and the ban should have been overturned on appeal right away, it does make sense that the appeals team, broadly speaking, rejects “I didn’t know this contained CSAM” as a legitimate appeal reason). This is barely news worthy. The real headline should be about how hundreds of CSAM images were freely available and sharable from this data set.
An automatic reaction is a reaction
They reacted to the presence of CSAM. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it being contained in an AI training dataset, as the comment I originally replied to states.